Table 8 Comparison of the proposed work with recent literature.

Research work	Algorithms considered	Dataset used	Highest accuracy (%)	Precision (%)	Recall (%)		F1-score (%)	Specificity (%)	AUC/-ROC (%)	Negative predicted values (%)	MCC (%)	False-positive rate	False-negative rate	False discovery rate	Misclassification rate	Statistical analysis	XAI
Chandrasekhar and Peddakrishna [31]	Voting	HDDC and IDD	95 with IEEE Dataport	96.04	93.27		94.63	95	-	91.57	87.94	0.0500	0.0673	0.0396	0.0500	×	×
Tiwari et al. [32]	Stacking	IDD	92.34	92	93.49		92.74	91.07	92.28	93.49	84.64	0.0893	0.0651	0.0800	0.0766	×	×
Raza [33]	Voting	StatLog heart disease dataset	88.88	89	85		87	87	88	88	-	0.1300	0.1500	0.1000	0.1100	×	×
Mienye et al. [34]	Stacking	HDDC and FHSD	93 with FHSD	96	91		93	-	93.30	91	91	-	0.0900	0.0400	0.0700	×	×
Ambrews et al. [35]	Voting	FHSD and UHDD	91.96 with UHDD	92.40	91.72		91.69	90.77	-	91.72	-	0.0923	0.0828	0.0760	0.0804	×	×
Ashfaq [36]	Stacking	HDDC	87	83	83		83	-	83	83	83	-	0.0170	0.0170	0.0130	×	×
Habib and Tasnim [37]	Voting	FHSD	88.42	100	43		82	-	73	43	43	-	0.5700	0	0.1158	×	×
Mohapatra et al. [38]	Stacking	UHDD	91.8	92.6	92.6		92.6	90.9	91.7	92.6	83.5	0.0910	0.0740	0.0740	0.0820	×	×
Our paper	Stacking	HDDC	91	89.7	98.1	91.8		-	92	98.1	82.4	-	0.0190	0.0130	0.0888	√	√
Our paper	Stacking	UHDD	98	98.8	98.7	98.4		-	98	98.7	96.8	-	0.0130	0.0120	0.0167

Quick links

Search